I am ashamed of the term, so and so has agreed to or not agreed to speak to the committee once subpoened or asked to speak to investigators. ( Especially subpoened).
To me it is as stupid as someone being ordered to pay child support or a ticket or someone who is a witness to a murder or anything illegal and the law calls you in for information and the press refers to it as John Doe has agreed to talk to Friday and his partner. Is there no more downtown? Do people not get arrested for thumbing their nose at subpoenas or asked to come in and have a talk with investigators? I mean, seriously, they need to bring back Dragnet. Just the Facts…. Is there no such thing as witnesses anymore who are only considered witnesses if they agree to be? Seriously?
Put the fear of God and consequences into people who refuse to appear or cooperate. I never knew one had a choice. I never knew one could just say, Nah, I don’t think I want to deal with you or your authority and I will do as I please. The DOJ should order marshals pick them up...sit them in the chair and make the marshals stand there until the committee is through questioning them or they plead the 5th but don’t just let them say Nah...I ain’t showing up or answering questions.
This has gotten ridiculous. Meadows, Bannon, all refusing to cooperate should be held in a cell until they answer questions. Just the Facts. We should change the term investigation of witnesses to the willing to cooperate which is pure bullshit. It isn’t an investigation if you wait on conscience to bring a witness in front of investigators in to talk. I got more cooperation from my children...why? There were consequences if they refused to cooperate.
How about these new subpoenas?
Are you listening DOJ? These stallers are not only taking away the Committe’s authority, that committee was elected by We the People and we want answers. They are taking over our will and authority for answers by electing them. I NEVER let a kid of mine take away my authority so shame on the Law for allowing it to happen on something as serious as January 6.
A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House Chapter 17. Contempt
Sec. 1. In General Sec. 2. Statutory Contempt Procedure Sec. 3. -- Duties of the Speaker and U.S. Attorney Sec. 4. -- Defenses; Pertinence Requirement Sec. 5. Purging Contempt Research References 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1597-1640; 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1666-1724 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 332-334 Deschler Ch 15 Sec. Sec. 17-22 Manual Sec. Sec. 293-299 2 USC Sec. Sec. 192, 194
Sec. 1 . In General
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). Although the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the power to punish witnesses for contempt, that power has been deemed an inherent attribute of the legislative authority of Congress (Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821)) so far as necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative authority expressly granted (Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917)). However, as a power of self-preservation, a means and not an end, the power does not extend to infliction of punishment. Manual Sec. Sec. 294-296. To supplement this inherent power, Congress in 1857 adopted an alternative statutory contempt procedure. Sec. 2, infra. Thus, the House may either (1) certify a recalcitrant witness to the appropriate United States Attorney for possible indictment under this statute or (2) exercise its inherent power to commit for contempt by detaining the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Manual Sec. 296. The statutory procedure is the one used in modern practice, but the ``inherent power'' remains available. In one instance, the House invoked both procedures against a witness. 3 Hinds Sec. 1672.